Sid Ouared questions the ‘constitutional question’ over tax credit cuts.
When Conservative government plans to reduce tax credits were knocked back by the House of Lords last week, in the Westminster Village the issue quickly became a constitutional question: is it constitutional for a majority in the House of Commons to be vetoed by the unelected assembly in the other place?
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne suddenly became a radical democrat, fulminating that ‘unelected Labour and Lib Dem lords have defeated a financial matter passed by the House of Commons….That raises constitutional matters we will have to deal with.’
But in East London the constitution seems far away. Tax credits have never been anything but a question of dire poverty; and in some instances the £1,300-a-year at stake here, may be a matter of life and death.
Voting against the Tax Credit Bill, Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas had it right when he described it as ‘an attack on working families’. Speaking for his constituency he pointed out that ‘Barking and Dagenham as a borough is the second most-deprived area in London. The fact of the matter is that 57 per cent of local households are set to lose £1,300.’
The Labour MP’s passionate stance was backed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who challenged David Cameron on the issue at prime minister’s questions.
The Conservative leader continues to insist that tax credit cuts will be offset by a national living wage, and that welfare cuts are necessary to ‘get Britain working and keep the economy moving.’
Perhaps it depends where you move to, Mr Cameron. From where we are, it doesn’t seem that way.